Sunday, February 24, 2008

You must know, that contrary to what is understood of levitation, I have a view on this that cannot be said less then in complete wonderment, knowing full well the aspects of what science is stating. "I know" with all of sciences tools, there "is" something we do not understand. It would then be assigned to a Metaphysical description here falls short of the scientific definition.

I preserver still, given the circumstance of my youth, and the direction it pushed my life in terms of scientific study and philosophical determinations. What are one's motivation underpinnings with self and we find the course of life can be set to a degree?

Levitation is an excellent challenge to illustrate how contemplating breakthrough propulsion is different from contemplating rocketry. Rockets can hover, but not for very long before they run out of propellant. For an ideal breakthrough, some form of indefinite levitation is desirable, but there is no clear way how to represent the energy or power to perform this feat. Since physics defines work (energy) as the product of force acting over distance, no work is performed if there is no change in distance. Levitation means hovering with no change in height. Regardless, there are a variety of ways to toy with the notion of energy and power for indefinite levitation. A few of these approaches are listed in the next session. For now, only one approach is illustrated, specifically the nullification of gravitational potential.

An object in a gravitational field has the following defined value for its gravitational potential energy:

Equation 11

(11)

Usually this definition is used to compare energy differences between two relatively short differences in height ( r) but in our situation we are considering this potential energy in the more absolute sense. This same equation for potential energy can also be derived by calculating how much energy it would take to completely remove the object from the gravitational field, as if moving it to infinity. This is more in line with the analogy to nullify the effect of gravitational energy. This is also the same amount of energy that is required to stop an object at the levitation height ( r) if it were falling in from infinity with an initial velocity of zero.

Using this equation, it could conceivably require 62 mega-Joules to levitate 1-kg near the Earth's surface. This is roughly twice as much as putting 1-kg into low Earth orbit. Again, these assessments are strictly for illustrative purposes rather than suggesting that such breakthroughs are achievable or if they would even take this form if achievable. Some starting point for comparisons is needed, and this is just one version.

Hawking radiation owes its existence to the weirdness of the quantum world, in which pairs of virtual particles pop up out of empty space, annihilate each other and disappear. Around a black hole, virtual particles and anti-particles can be separated by the event horizon. Unable to annihilate, they become real. The properties of each pair are linked, or entangled. What happens to one affects the other, even if one is inside the black hole.

Given "thought experiments" sometimes it is necessary to understand the close relation with which entanglement issue, an elephant that falls into a blackhole, and a elephant that resides on the horizon, we look to explain what "measurement may mean" as we look at the entanglement.

All of physics as we know it is conditioned on the fact that information is conserved, even if it's badly scrambled," Susskind says.

So I ask, is there a way to see "mirror symmetry" as a viable aspect of the entanglement, while we look ever deeper into the blackhole for what can be expected/measured? Information, never lost?

How can one not look at space with such regard and understand that the geometrical tendencies while presenting them in coordinated space, can give a dynamical quality to what was never apparent before. Spacetime, takes on a whole new meaning. Moves the Gaussian coordinates to the realm of "abstract thinking in non euclidean , and presents new aspects for consideration that was previously dismissed and thought arrogant in relation to string theory.

Now, I am no way saying that what is being written here is to be compared, on the basis of the many mathematical insights portrayed in the development of string theory. I have hoped to touch this aspect of "dynamical thinking" at the microscopic level and at the same time, spoken to a macroscopic understandings well.

How fit and comparative the mind to think that it's journey in the imaginations could travel space as we know it on so many levels? Microscopic tendencies to see reality in it's makeup could have been compared to the "powers of ten."

Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phenomenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

How many of the good scientists can say this themself, that no matter what, with all the avenues of propulsion systems talked about, all the aspects of satellite deployment, where are there such places, that we set our sight on with the habitation of space(L5)? Does it hold to the thinking mind, that we would talk about such comparisons for consideration first? How is it then we should look at space?

So we understand not only the travels of satellites, but the place and tunnels through which they travel through in that space.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

"My heart leaps up when I behold A rainbow in the sky."William Wordsworth-- My Heart Leaps Up

This post is based on "the production" and not the detection of gravitational waves.

It does serve it's purpose, that I explain what I have in terms of detection, that one moves from that process, to actual production of them.:) Now I am not talking about Taylor and Hulse and PSR 1913+16 either.

Nor am I talking about Kip Thorne, Webber, or Ligo operation for that matter.

I am actually talking about the creation of gravitational waves.

Now imagine that you see this "slide of light," and you were to think that in front of you, this would help you see where the gravitational field would be falling away from you. You would be sliding "ahead" from where you pointed and created this effect.

So now you get the idea here of what I propose in the production of gravitational waves versus the detection of them?:)

While watching a television program I listened to what he had to say. For people interested in gravity, Quantum or otherwise, this topic helped captured my change in thinking that is postulated, and one I am giving thought right now.

quarks are microscopic bodies. The gravitational effects associated with the motion and interaction of masses that small are ridiculously small.

In theories contemplating a low quantum gravity scale, black holes could in principle be created in high energy collisions, but if a chance of detecting their creation exists, it is not by gravitational effects, which remain billions of billions of billions of billions (and then some) of times smaller than those caused by strong interactions.

It would seem to me that if any lens could direct "the focus of our vision" then why not the focus of the gravitational waves? I mean if there is a "inverse calculation" to waves, it would seem t me that such a process could point to a heavy concentration in terms of blackhole production?

As I am reading different thoughts are manifesting and one of these has to do with the "escape velocity of the photon." Why I am not sure at the moment. This used as a measure of determination of whether a blackhole exists? How did we arrive at such a point?

It is important for me to recognize the collider process in context of what it is experimentally doing. For me this is demonstrating a "geometrical process" even if it is being taken down to the such "weak gravitational ranges" that I would point to what would manifest,if a tunnelling effect occurred from one location to the next.

Time travel

Plato:Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?Tunneling in Faster then Light

It would be suspect to me that such travelling in space would allow for the manufacture of gravitational influences to be pointed in the "direction of travel" and allow such slippage away from that current position.

It was a gradual process that using Grace to help me see the earth in new ways was paramount to the inclusion principle of electromagnetism contained within the move to GR.I may be mixed up here, and I have no one to say.

"Color of gravity" assumes that you have seen the colour of gravity in relation to this slide of light. So seeing in such a way would seem relevant in the fifth dimensional perspective.

In Kaku's preface of Hyperspace, page ix, we find a innocent enough statement that helps us orientate a view that previous to all understanding, is couched in the work of Kaluza.

In para 3, he writes,

Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and gravity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained in the fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.

I would think such a thought here by Kaku would have stimulated the brains of people to see that a direct result is needed in our reality to which such thoughts I am giving would allow you to see gravity in new ways?

Lagrangian views with regards to relations between the Earth, Moon and Sun would help one to see the general outlay of gravitational influences in space. That is also part of the work I have been following to understand the spacetime fabric and how we may see this in our dealings.

In educating myself I learnt to trust my intuition when it comes to defining the basis of "new physics" that was to emerge. As well as, the new particle manifestation that would arise from "specific points" on interaction. What was suppose to be our starting point. This is really difficult for me to put into words, yet, if you knew that there was a "change over/cross over point" and how was this defined? It seemed to me, we had to have a place that would do this.

"Nothing" is difficult to talk about, and "empty space" is not really empty. So to think "nothing" is a very hard one for me to grasp. If one thinks about what "sprang into being" I of course had to find this "place of traversing" from "one state of being" to another. What things help us to define the nature of that point?

I used the question mark not to befuddle those that read here or sanction any post to some idea about what the title following with a question mark, is worth so many points on the "flowery scale."

On the other hand, gravity in the form of curved space would permeate the whole bulk of the higher dimensional spacetime ….Stephen Hawking1

I shall have to define "flowery scale" sometime, but I would rather not give any credit to those who hold a position in science who have categorize people according to that same point system. Oh and please, do not consider the flowers less then what I hold as of high value in these "maturations" to be thought less then either.

While we had been witness to the collider experiments we were also quite aware that that such events had to be taking place with earth, from event sources released in space.

Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Physics for Many Different Scales-Nils Andersson

Flat space time? The thought there are strong gravitational forces at work and where are these located? Can there "be" amidst this strong curvature, the idea that a super fluid born, would have a place where a state of inertia could exist? I thought quickly of what happens when the blackhole collapses and what could come of it?

Of course this concept of inertia is strong in my mind but would need better clarifications as I am relaying it here in this circumstance.

But looking for these locations in Lagrangian views of the Sun Earth relation, it seemed viable to me that such a state could have gone from a very strong gravitational inclination( our suns, increase temperatures of the collapsing blackhole) to one that is "very free" and "not flat" but would allow information both ways(from before to now) to be traversed, as if in a jet or cylinder. So that the space around it would be expression not only the earlier constituents of the universe before this translation but manifest into the new physics with which would motive this universe, new particle manifestation, from what did not exist before.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

From a early age, young Albert showed great interest in the world around him. When he was five years old, his father gave him a compass, and the child was enchanted by the device and intrigued by the fact the needle followed a invisible field to point always in the direction of the north pole.Reminiscing in old age, Einstein mentioned this incident as one of the factors that perhaps motivated him years later to study the gravitational field.God's Equation, by Amir D. Aczel, Pg 14

So you fast forward a few years and what have you got with regards to nature accompany the man who fell off his roof?

So it is "by accident" General Relativity was born? Having things happen within context of natures own timing leaves one with some impressions it seems? How often have you noticed the outside world while you are doing your abstract thinking? What is so conducive that the open doorway allowed this other information to flow quite freely into the mind's cavity? You happebn to be working woth natures and it's puzzles yet what use any of these geometrical forms?

So having faced the idea of the "gravitonic condensation" what use this idea(a painting) in terms of what we see as we spell out the differences between micro lensing and "gravitational lensing" how light travels from those distant points in the universe?

I know about people distancing themselves from what may indeed trouble them, as if, one presented some "anomaly in nature" that I/you may have never seen before. Do I take them on face value for what we had know of them? While reading their blog over the years, months, days, what conclusion had you reached?? Superman, Spiderman, and Captain Marvel comics which glorify the hero? Spheres, as bubbles in gravity free environment are always a nice thing to consider.

I selected Kuhn because I was speaking directly to what was evident in my own life. What was presented to me "as the experience" may have likewise captivated a young child of 5, while another is trouble by symmetry in a "qualitative style."

I began my own investigations, and this set the course for my life to understand what had happened. How ever absurd one may find my statement in the previous post, it is a fact that I do not know how it was accomplished, but I did indeed see the effect of the person free of what we know as gravity holding the individual to her bosom.

So you have this statement. Q9 said,"the outer gravity which keeps our feet firmly on the ground."

So how was I suppose to react given the circumstances I had mentioned? If I said the mind was involved in the process "what proof do I have" that the person could indeed do the things that defy, what a frog may do for one who likes to wear shoes that make them light on their feet?

So any concept which had spoken about gravity, to one extent or another, has entered my research, for me to find some way that would allow such a thing to entertain the sceptic, as well as take the form of flowery pot comments. "Concepts" as foolish as the bulk?

Of course I want to know what happen in the way that young Einstein wondered about the mystery of nature assigned to that needle. We know now don't we? Oh, gravity is weak here on earth? Weaker then the magnet that is attached itself to the fridge.

So when gravity had ever been strong? How strong, that it could reach only so far?